Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

From the laboratory to the clinic: sharing BRCA VUS reclassification tools with practicing genetics professionals

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Community Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite ongoing research efforts to reclassify BRCA variant of uncertain significance (VUS), results for strategies to disseminate findings to genetic counselors are lacking. We disseminated results from a study on reclassification of BRCA VUS using a mailed reclassification packet including a reclassification guide, patient education aid, and patient letter template for patients/families with BRCA VUS. This study reports on genetic counselors’ responses to the dissemination materials. Eligible participants (n = 1015) were identified using mailing lists from professional genetics organizations. Participants were mailed a BRCA VUS reclassification packet and a return postcard to assess responses to the materials. Closed-ended responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and thematic analysis was conducted on open-ended responses. In response to the mailing, 128 (13.0%) genetic counselors completed and returned postcards. The majority of respondents (n = 117; 91.4%) requested the patient letter template and patient education guides as PDFs (n = 122; 95.3%). The majority (n = 123; 96.9%) wanted an updated reclassification guide upon availability. Open-ended responses demonstrate the material was well-received; some specified they would tailor the patient letter to fit their practice and patients’ needs. Participants requested additional patient and provider educational materials for use in practice. Materials communicating BRCA VUS reclassification updates were liked and were likely to be used in practice. To achieve the benefits of VUS reclassification in clinical practice, ongoing efforts are needed to continuously and effectively disseminate findings to providers and patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baker DL, Eash T, Schuette JL, Uhlmann WR (2002) Guidelines for writing letters to patients. J Genet Couns 11(5):399–418

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Balmaña J, Digiovanni L, Gaddam P, Walsh MF, Joseph V, Stadler ZK et al (2016) Conflicting interpretation of genetic variants and cancer risk by commercial laboratories as assessed by the Prospective Registry of Multiplex Testing. J Clin Oncol 34:4071–4078

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3(2):77–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown E, Skinner M, Ashley S, Reed K, Dixon SD (2016) Assessment of the readability of genetic counseling patient letters. J Genet Couns 25(3):454–460

  • Campeau PM, Foulkes WD, Tischkowitz MD (2008) Hereditary breast cancer: new genetic developments, new therapeutic avenues. Hum Genet 124(1):31–42

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cho YI, Johnson TP, VanGeest JB (2013) Enhancing surveys of health care professionals: a meta-analysis of techniques to improve response. Eval Health Prof 36(3):382–407

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cragun D, Radford C, Dolinsky J, Caldwell M, Chao E, Pal T (2014) Panel-based testing for inherited colorectal cancer: a descriptive study of clinical testing performed by a US laboratory. Clin Genet 86(6):510–520

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dillman DA (2000) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method (vol. 2). Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Domchek SM, Friebel TM, Singer CF, Evans DG, Lynch HT, Isaacs C et al (2010) Association of risk-reducing surgery in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers with cancer risk and mortality. JAMA 304(9):967–975

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Eccles B, Copson E, Maishman T, Abraham J, Eccles D (2015a) Understanding of BRCA VUS genetic results by breast cancer specialists. BMC Cancer 15(1):1

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Eccles DM, Mitchell G, Monteiro ANA, Schmutzler R, Couch FJ, Spurdle AB, Gómez-García EB, on behalf of the ENIGMA Clinical Working Group, Driessen R, Lindor NM, Blok MJ, Moller P, de la Hoya M, Pal T, Domchek S, Nathanson K, Van Asperen C, Diez O, Rheim K, Stoppa-Lyonnet D, Parsons M, Goldgar D (2015b) BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing—pitfalls and recommendations for managing variants of uncertain clinical significance. Ann Oncol 26(10):2057–2065. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdv278

  • Forrest LE, Delatycki MB, Curnow L, Skene L, Aitken M (2010) Genetic health professionals and the communication of genetic information in families: practice during and after a genetic consultation. Am J Med Genet A 152(6):1458–1466

    Google Scholar 

  • Gage M, Wattendorf D, Henry L (2012) Translational advances regarding hereditary breast cancer syndromes. J Surg Oncol 105(5):444–451

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Grann VR, Patel PR, Jacobson JS, Warner E, Heitjan DF, Ashby-Thompson M et al (2011) Comparative effectiveness of screening and prevention strategies among BRCA1/2-affected mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Res Treat 125(3):837–847

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kindig DA, Panzer A, Nielsen-Bohlman L (2004) Health literacy: a prescription to end confusion. Institutes of Medicine, Washington, DC, p 309283329

    Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff K (2012) Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurian AW, Hare EE, Mills MA, Kingham KE, McPherson L, Whittemore AS et al (2014) Clinical evaluation of a multiple-gene sequencing panel for hereditary cancer risk assessment. J Clin Oncol 32(19):2001–2009

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kutner M, Greenburg E, Jin Y, Paulsen C (2006) The health literacy of America’s adults: results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy. NCES 2006-483. National Center for Education Statistics, p 76. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED493284

  • Lindor NM, Guidugli L, Wang X, Vallée MP, Monteiro AN, Tavtigian S et al (2012) A review of a multifactorial probability-based model for classification of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants of uncertain significance (VUS). Hum Mutat 33(1):8–21

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lindor NM, Goldgar DE, Tavtigian SV, Plon SE, Couch FJ (2013) BRCA1/2 sequence variants of uncertain significance: a primer for providers to assist in discussions and in medical management. Oncologist 18(5):518–524

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell KN, Wubbenhorst B, D’Andrea K, Garman B, Long JM, Powers J et al (2014) Prevalence of mutations in a panel of breast cancer susceptibility genes in BRCA1/2-negative patients with early-onset breast cancer. Genet Med 17(8):630–638

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McMaster HS, LeardMann CA, Speigle S, Dillman DA (2017) An experimental comparison of web-push vs. paper-only survey procedures for conducting an in-depth health survey of military spouses. BMC Med Res Methodol 17(1):73

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Mendes Á, Paneque M, Sousa L, Clarke A, Sequeiros J (2016) How communication of genetic information within the family is addressed in genetic counselling: a systematic review of research evidence. Eur J Hum Genet 24(3):315–325

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mesters I, Ausems A, De Vries H (2005) General public’s knowledge, interest and information needs related to genetic cancer: an exploratory study. Eur J Cancer Prev 14(1):69–75

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Molster C, Charles T, Samanek A, O’Leary P (2008) Australian study on public knowledge of human genetics and health. Public Health Genomics 12(2):84–91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • NSGC (2016) Survey report: 2016 NSGC professional status survey executive summary. National Society of Genetic Counselors. https://www.nsgc.org/p/cm/ld/fid=68

  • O’Neill SC, Rini C, Goldsmith RE, Valdimarsdottir H, Cohen LH, Schwartz MD (2009) Distress among women receiving uninformative BRCA1/2 results: 12-month outcomes. Psycho-Oncology 18(10):1088–1096

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Pal T, Permuth-Wey J, Betts JA, Krischer JP, Fiorica J, Arango H et al (2005) BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations account for a large proportion of ovarian carcinoma cases. Cancer 104(12):2807–2816

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pepin MG, Murray ML, Bailey S, Leistritz-Kessler D, Schwarze U, Byers PH (2015) The challenge of comprehensive and consistent sequence variant interpretation between clinical laboratories. Genet Med 18:20–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Petrucelli N, Lazebnik N, Huelsman KM, Lazebnik RS (2002) Clinical interpretation and recommendations for patients with a variant of uncertain significance in BRCA1 or BRCA2: a survey of genetic counseling practice. Genet Test 6(2):107–113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Plon SE, Eccles DM, Easton D, Foulkes WD, Genuardi M, Greenblatt MS et al (2008) Sequence variant classification and reporting: recommendations for improving the interpretation of cancer susceptibility genetic test results. Hum Mutat 29(11):1282

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Richards S, Aziz N, Bale S, Bick D, Das S, Gastier-Foster J et al (2015) Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet Med 17(5):405–423

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Richter S, Haroun I, Graham T, Eisen A, Kiss A, Warner E (2013) Variants of unknown significance in BRCA testing: impact on risk perception, worry, prevention and counseling. Ann Oncol 24(suppl 8):viii69–viii74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roggenbuck J, Temme R, Pond D, Baker J, Jarvis K, Liu M et al (2015) The long and short of genetic counseling summary letters: a case–control study. J Genet Couns 24(4):645–653

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sandberg EH, Sharma R, Sandberg WS (2012) Deficits in retention for verbally presented medical information. J Am Soc Anesthesiol 117(4):772–779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherr CL, Lindor NM, Malo T, Couch FJ, Vadaparampil S (2015a) Genetic counselors’ practices and confidence regarding variant of uncertain significance results and reclassification from BRCA testing. Clin Genet 88(6):523–529

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Scherr CL, Lindor NM, Malo TL, Couch FJ, Vadaparampil ST (2015b) A preliminary investigation of genetic counselors’ information needs when receiving a variant of uncertain significance result: a mixed methods study. Genet Med 17:739–746

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Treacy K, Elborn JS, Rendall J, Bradley JM (2008) Copying letters to patients with cystic fibrosis (CF): letter content and patient perceptions of benefit. J Cyst Fibros 7(6):511–514

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tung N, Battelli C, Allen B, Kaldate R, Bhatnagar S, Bowles K et al (2015) Frequency of mutations in individuals with breast cancer referred for BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing using next-generation sequencing with a 25-gene panel. Cancer 121(1):25–33

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vail PJ, Morris B, van Kan A, Burdett BC, Moyes K, Theisen A et al (2015) Comparison of locus-specific databases for BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants reveals disparity in variant classification within and among databases. J Community Genet 6(4):351–359

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Vos J, Otten W, van Asperen C, Jansen A, Menko F, Tibben A (2008) The counsellees’ view of an unclassified variant in BRCA1/2: recall, interpretation, and impact on life. Psycho-Oncology 17(8):822–830

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vos J, Gómez-García E, Oosterwijk JC, Menko FH, Stoel RD, van Asperen CJ et al (2012) Opening the psychological black box in genetic counseling. The psychological impact of DNA testing is predicted by the counselees’ perception, the medical impact by the pathogenic or uninformative BRCA1/2-result. Psycho-Oncology 21(1):29–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • White P, Singleton A, Jones R (2004) Copying referral letters to patients: the views of patients, patient representatives and doctors. Patient Educ Couns 55(1):94–98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by the Breast Cancer Spore CA 116201. This work was supported in part by the Survey Methods Core Facility at the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute; a National Cancer Institute designated Comprehensive Cancer Center (P30-CA76292).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Outcomes and Behavior, Moffitt Cancer Center, 12902 Magnolia Drive, MFC-CRISP, Tampa, FL, 33612, USA

    Bianca M. Augusto, Paige Lake & Susan T. Vadaparampil

  2. Department of Communication Studies, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA

    Courtney L. Scherr

  3. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

    Fergus J. Couch

  4. Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA

    Noralane M. Lindor

Authors
  1. Bianca M. Augusto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paige Lake
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Courtney L. Scherr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fergus J. Couch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Noralane M. Lindor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Susan T. Vadaparampil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susan T. Vadaparampil.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Authors Augusto, Lake, Scherr, Lindor, and Couch declare that they have no conflict of interest. Author Vadaparampil has a research grant from Myriad Genetics Laboratories.

Human studies and informed consent

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5). Prior to conducting this study, approval was obtained from the University of South Florida and Mayo Clinic IRBs.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 239 kb)

ESM 2

(DOCX 184 kb)

ESM 3

(DOCX 161 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Augusto, B.M., Lake, P., Scherr, C.L. et al. From the laboratory to the clinic: sharing BRCA VUS reclassification tools with practicing genetics professionals. J Community Genet 9, 209–215 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-017-0343-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-017-0343-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation